Social Nationalism: The Political Thought of Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus

Here we proceed from the fact that the mentality, traditions and way of life of the people cannot be changed overnight. Must they be changed at all? It cannot be possible to throw unprepared people into the market abyss—Alexander Lukashenko, 2002

We have once again felt ourselves a part of the sacred whole, which name is the people of Belarus. We have made sure: A healthy nation is being formed in our country. Healthy not only physically, but also spiritually–(Alexander Lukashenko, 2009)

Alexander Lukashenko is probably the most maligned politician in the world today. The reasons for this are not difficult to discover. Contrary to the prattle about his alleged “tyranny,” Lukashenko is under attack due to his success. Truth be told, of course, Belarus has more important opposition parties than the U.S., and also has a press that is part state-owned, but with many legal opposition newspapers in existence, partly funded by the United States and the EU. Nevertheless, his success is not based on this.

Lukashenko is victimized because he has proven the economic success of the social nationalist model, or what he calls the “social market” model as opposed to libertarian capitalism. There is no doubt this model has strong national associations, is generally pro-Russian and looks to the East, rather than the terminally ill West, for its economic future. Belarus was one of the most essential components of the old Soviet Union. She is very well educated, specializing in electronics and fuel transport and refining. This makes her highly strategic and a threat to the failing West.

Advertisement

Belarus is terra incognita to most Americans, even most Americans who fancy themselves “experts” in international affairs. Therefore, it strains the imagination as to why the Western elite, including former presidential candidate John McCain, have made attacking Belarus a major aspect of their political life. (Here’s The Weekly Standard gushingover an Ayn Rand-style economist they want to be president of Belarus; here Michele Brand, writing in Counterpunch,exposesthe Western onslaught on Belarus.) The country is the size of Kansas with little diaspora in America. It seems that the only rational reason for the constant attacks on this tiny country is that it serves as a means of attacking Russia—a neocon bogeyman if ever there was one. Russian education, gas and oil technology, scientific establishments and natural resources can be the only rational reason for this constant drumbeat of rhetorical attacks. The fact that Russia and Belarus have seen substantial economic growth and increases in financial capitalization while the West seems forever mired in debt and social decay is something that embarrasses American “free market conservatives.”

Lukashenko as depicted by opponents

Recently, McCain seemed to prove the economic subtext of his often ranting condemnations of Belarus in a recent trip to the Baltics: “We appreciate the step forward the EU took in adopting the visa ban, but, we think, it should go further to economic sanctions on energy companies within Belarus that fuel money for that regime to oppress its own people.” In fact, when any lengthy discussion of Belarus comes up in McCain’s political life, energy resources are usually lurking in the background. McCain has received tens of millions from oil firms in America, Israel, the Netherlands and Britain, and serve as at least the financial reason for this strange obsession.

Elected in 1994, Lukashenko has popularity ratings that Western politicians would—and do—envy. Since 1994, Belarus’ spectacular economic growth, diversification, trade surplus and low unemployment have maintained the president’s popularity rating at very high levels, generally hovering around the 60th and 70th percentile. Recently, the London-based TNS Global Research Organization, polled 10,000 Belorussians as to their President. This shows Lukashenko with a solid popularity rating of nearly 75 percent as of the Fall of 2010. Therefore, the accusations of his rigging elections are nonsense. Even more, his opposition is highly divided, ineffectual and deeply doubtful as to their purpose.

What is the basis of his popularity? It’s his sense that Belarus needs an economic policy that serves its national interests. As the Russian and Ukrainian economies were devastated and taken out of the country by the oligarchs in the early 1990s with State Department, IMF and Harvard University backing, Belarus put its privatization program on hold. The IMF was asked to leave the country, and, from that point on, Lukashenko was called “the last dictator in Europe.” It is no accident that the bulk of his U.S opposition comes from Harvard University, especially from the law school, including Yarik Kryovi, who at one point worked for the Soros-owned “Radio Liberty” and served as a lawyer for the World Bank. His CV lists his work for “private clients” he will not disclose. The power elite wants Lukashenko’s head as he continues to become popular among the hoi-polloi of the country.

Lukashenko’s record is stellar. According to World Bank statistics updated in 2010, Belarus avoided the recession/depression that has the West in its grip. Belarussian banks, mostly owned by the state, outperformed all European banks in 2009. State-owned banks increased their capitalization by almost 20 percent as the Western taxpayer was forced to bail out the same banks that have condemned the Minsk government.

From 2001–2008, the Belorussian economic growth averagewas almost 9 percent, which is roughly equal to that of China. As Western economies were contracting in 2010, the Belarussian economy grew about 6 percent, with a 10 percent increase in agricultural production and a 27 percent increase in exports. Real income, that is, inflation and cost of living adjusted income, grew by about 7 percent in 2010.

According to the IMF, Belarussian unemployment was 0 percent in 1991, but rose to 4 percent in 1996 as Russian and Ukraine were liquidated from the inside. Under Lukashenko’s firm leadership in stopping privatization and arresting the bandits who tried to liquidate the economy, the IMF reports that unemployment went down to 1 percent in 2008. The United Nations says the same.

Without exaggeration, these figures, all from hostile sources, show that Lukashenko’s leadership was and is a success. This is the main source of his popularity and the reason he is elected and re-elected on a regular basis. But the important question is what serves as the basis for Lukashenko’s leadership? The answer is the “social nationalist and social market” idea. The official Belarussian doctrine on Developmentsays this:

Belarus has chosen to follow the path of evolutionary development and rejected the prescriptions of the International Monetary Fund like shock therapy and landslide privatization. Over many years of creative work, the Belorussian model of socio-economic development has been put in place – the model which combines the advantages of market economy and efficient social protection. Our development concept has been elaborated in keeping with the historical continuity and people’s traditions. The Belorussian model aims to improve the existing economic basis rather than to make a revolutionary break of the former system. The Belorussian economic model contains the elements of continuity in the functioning of state institutions everywhere it has proved effective.

In other words, Lukashenko’s view here is that of a “third way” between socialism and capitalism. It takes what is good from the free market but does not dispense with a strong state that makes certain economic growth is not just for the well-connected few. What Marxism and capitalism have in common is their results: total inequality in power, wealth and access. Whether it be the party or the oligarchical class, these modern, materialist systems serve as little more than massive transfers of wealth from the working man to the oligarch. Whether these oligarchs claim to be working “for the people,” “the party,” or “American freedom” makes no difference. The result is precisely the same.

In a meeting with his Cabinet and other significant government and military figures in March of 2002, Lukashenko summarized his political views. It is worth quoting at length:

What are the distinctive features of our model?

First. Strong and efficient state authority. To safeguard the citizens’ safety, to ensure social justice and public order, not to allow expansion of crime and corruption is indeed the role of the state. Only the strong authority managed to drag the Belorussian economy out of the economic abyss.

Our nearest neighbors have in the long run realized that, if there is no strong hierarchy of authority, liberalization of the economy in the transition period brings about social instability and legal unheard-of disorder. It results in public unruliness!

As for us, we had a clear idea at the very beginning that premature expansion of market relations would not allow us to radically resolve any of the existing pressing problems. On the contrary, new problems would emerge, generated by the specificity of the market relations. Public accord would break, resulting in conflicts and instability. And it is political stability that is one of the main conditions for gradual integration into the world economy. I would refer to it as one of the distinctive features or consequences (whatever you call it) of the model of development of the Belorussian economy.

Here we proceed from the fact that mentality, traditions and way of life of the people cannot be changed overnight. Must they be changed at all? It cannot be possible to throw unprepared people into the market abyss. One needs decades to work out a new world outlook.

The second distinctive feature of our model is in the fact that the private sector can and has to be developing alongside the public sector. But not to the detriment of national interests. I emphasize: if you are a private owner, it does not imply you should do whatever you like. National interests, the state, must be the main priority and the main goal for the work of every citizen, enterprise or entrepreneur whose production is based on private ownership.

This is not campaign rhetoric, but serves as the basis of government policy since the mid 1990s. The state must be strong, honest, and competently led, because the alternative is oligarchical control and the substitution of private for public law. The state is taking a protective stance towards its people—a novel idea in an age with Western elites have systematically undermined the interests of their own people, particularly with regard to immigration. As the Soviet Union fell to pieces, only the state remained to safeguard some minimal concept of the public good. Russian under Yeltsin and IMF control was incapable of this, proving the incompetence and corruption of such multinational agencies. Only in Belarus was this economic rape stopped.

The ignorance of the “free marketeers” is shown in their views on Russia. They assumed around 1991 that if the government just “got out of way” of the “invisible hand,” all would be well. What they did not count on was the radical inequalities of access to power. Those with good government jobs, black market fortunes or other forms of “gray” access to power were precisely those who were in the best position to take power. Under the weak leadership of Yeltsin and the IMF, the Russian economy almost disappeared. The work of decades of the Russian people was liquidated and sent to America, Cyprus, Israel and Latin America in the name of “freedom” and “democracy.”

The “free market” is a slogan—a mode of legitimizing the already extant distribution of power. There was never a time of the pure “free market,” but rather, it existed only because of the abilities of those capable of taking over during the decay of Ancien Régime-Europe in the Enlightenment. The old social protections of the medieval peasant and townsmen were thrown by the wayside in this oligarchic rush for progress, money and power. The same thing happened in Russia and Ukraine in the early 1990s. Weak leadership meant the liquidation of the state, economy and legal system. In his 2009 New Year’s Address, Lukashenko added more detail to his basic approach:

We were urgently recommended to place the economy under the command of the rules of the world exchange market. But we decided not to rely on the volatile exchange trends.

We are not the ones who have provoked today’s crisis which is sending shockwaves all around the world. On the contrary, the crisis has come as a result of something that we have been always been determined to struggle against.

The central words are this: “I emphasize: if you are a private owner, it does not imply you should do whatever you like.” It is the nation that comes first. The nation here is the bilingual tradition of Belarus between Russian and Belarussian. It is Slavic Orthodox and agrarian. It is based on a fundamentally egalitarian distribution of land and resources in the name of ethnic and national solidarity. Economic progress means nothing if it benefits only the few. Nationalism implies solidarity, especially in a small and vulnerable country under constant attack.

In his famous essay “On the Historical Choice of Belarus,” the more “ethnic” aspects of his political theory are laid out. In general, the purpose of the state, in this realm, is to provide a safe home for the specific traditions of the peoples living within it to flourish. This includes the agrarian culture, urban life, the specific ethnic traditions of Poles, Belorussians and Russians living within Belarus. The point is not so much that the state is representative of a specific national tradition, but rather that preserving the national traditions of the peoples living within her borders becomes paramount. There are no real ethnically pure states, and therefore, the best the state can do is protect the ethical traditions and regional variations that do exist.

In his April, 2002 State of the Union Address, Lukashenko stated:

Rights and freedoms must be in harmony with responsibilities for violations of the state-established regulations. Development of the Belorussian economy implies not only the encouragement of small and medium-sized enterprise (although, as I said, these must and will be encouraged). Historically, the Belorussian industry means large-scale enterprises. There is only one promising way: updating and re-equipping existing major industries so as to produce competitive new generations of products. Just look, the entire world merges into transnational corporations. Why then should we crush, divide and destroy our gigantic highly cooperated enterprises? They must be relied upon. In pursuing its policy, the state will, first of all, be relying upon these giants, which have been maintaining us and feeding us. Immense investments are needed for this, which cannot be attracted without changing the form of ownership. (Translation mine, available only in Russian)

His doctrine of “social right” is that there are no abstract rights. They are contextualized into a way of life—that of the national collective. You have no right, for example, to do something that harms the economic life of the country. Rights in the West are mindless slogan words without meaning. They exist to end an argument without making your case: “I have a right to do this” the American businessman might say as he outsources is jobs to China. Justifying such an alleged “right” is another matter, but the very act of claiming a “right” to do something shuts down all argument. Lukashenko asks, not what are your “rights,” but what is the “good” thing to do. No one has a “right” to undermine the public good, especially for private profit. The entire point of law is to protect labor from the arrogance and currency-fetishism of the ruling class. Only strong leadership able to go over the heads of the powerful can fashion such laws. Lukashenko and Belarus have reaped the benefits of such a policy.

In confronting the onslaught of the West in his 2006 State of the Union Address, Lukashenko spared no feelings:

The country’s development policy line worked out by us has proved right. High rates of economic growth, which our economy has been already demonstrating for more than 10 years, provide good evidence thereof. Just compare: our annual GDP growth over the past five–year planning period was 7.5 percent as against 3.5 percent of the world average.

Western theoreticians fail to explain the reasons of such a success. They do not fit in with their “democratic” scheme.

The reasons, however, are simple. We have not embezzled the people’s wealth, we have not got into burdensome debts. Relying on life itself, we have worked out our own model of development based on well–balanced and thought–out reforms. Without any sweeping privatization and shock therapy — preserving everything that was best in our economy and in our traditions. At the same time we have been learning to work under new, market conditions, taking advantage of the experience elsewhere in the world and taking into account the modern trends of the world economy. Strong state power, strong social policy and reliance on the people— that is what explains the secret behind our success. (Translation mine, available only in Russian)

Liberal democracy in the West has meant, in real terms, the constant transfer of the labor of the American worker to the pockets of the banks and the multinational firms. When the banks failed, they demanded trillions from these same taxpayers to continue to lend. Much of this money just went overseas and into the pockets of the major players like Goldman-Sachs. In the 2008 elections, Goldman spent a huge amount of money on both candidates. Whoever won in 2008 saw Goldman as their primary beneficiary. This is liberal democracy, and this is a large part of the American failure.

In sending the Western oligarchs packing, Lukashenko did two things: first, he assured his own popularity and political success while, second, earning the hatred of the Western establishment. It should be noted that at the 2010 Bildeberg meeting, not a single Russian or Belarussian was invited. The same was true in 2011. (Jim Tucker, personal communication)

In his “Historical Choice” essay, Lukashenko condemns the form of Free Trade practiced by the EU. For him, the playing field is already slanted to the elites in the powerful states of the union. In the EU—he is writing in 2003—states like Greece or Portugal could not compete with the advanced states of Germany or England. The benefits that Greece takes from the EU exist solely in the interests of the ruling classes, while the people suffer. German or French goods flood the Greek market, putting Greek artisans out of business.

When Lukashenko uses the word “independence,” it is meant not just as a campaign slogan, but as a moral reality. Independence means economic independence—the global market will be entered on our terms, not the banks’. Independence means that, while Belarus will always be an Orthodox and Slavic people, that does not mean issues of justice will be ignored in Minsk’s choice of allies. There is to be no dependence on anyone. Dependence on other states for energy, markets or industrial components automatically means that the people themselves have lost all power over their economic lives, and their well-being in that sense is solely in the hands of others, foreigners. For Belarus, the worker will be involved in all levels of economic decision making and will have some control over the economic life he enjoys.

When commemorating the 60th anniversary of the massacre of Katyn in March of 2003, Lukashenko said this:

We still have to analyze and learn lessons from current events. But already today it is clear: the system of the world order has been destroyed due to the war in Iraq, the role of the UN Security Council has been brought to zero, international law has been trampled underfoot, the principle of no external imposition to any people of the system of governance and power has been violated. The Belorussian people condemn the aggression by the United States of America. So do most of the peoples and states of the world, including even the closest allies of the USA.

Lukashenko has consistently promoted that United Nations as a means of controlling American imperial power. Furthermore, he appreciates that the UN would include the views of poorer states throughout the world in foreign policy decisions. Lukashenko has rejected any form of global government, but still sees a constructive role for some international organizations in protecting the weak against the strong. He stresses the “principle of no external imposition” of state forms or ideology on a people. Lukashenko condemns America’s ideological crusade for oil, Israel and the oligarchic doctrine of “liberal democracy.”

Lukashenko sees ideological crusades not as moral interventions or manifestations of dis-interested humanitarianism, but cloaks for raw oligarchical power. In Lukashenko’s ethical theory, oligarchy is the worst form of government. Historically, from Novgorod to Venice to New York, oligarchies have used liberalism, “republicanism,” and media manipulation as a cloak for their own power. In a similar vein, Lukashenko states in his 2006 address to the heads of Belarus’ diplomatic corps:

If we are talking about respect for states, their independence and sovereignty, their rights to choose their futures, about the right of the people to elect its leaders, about respect of the right to life and free labor, worthy wages and salaries, the right to equality of all before the law, the right to freedom of opinion and expression in conformity to the law, without detriment to the rights of other people — these are our values. The U.S. and the EU do not have a monopoly on these rights. Our nation had paid a far greater price for these values than the USA and the EU.

As always, Lukashenko shows the distinction between a politician and a statesman. It is concepts like these that have helped this man become one of the most popular politicians in the Slavic world. Again, the Belarussian President holds abstract “rights” as little more than cloaks for raw oligarchic power. The U.S. invades the rights and sovereignty of other states not to protect people from “human rights abuses,” but rather, to serve the interests of its overgrown and excessively wealthy private sector.

While the Western press continually repeats the inaccurate statement that Belarussian media is “state-owned,” they themselves hew to a single line on most important topics, especially on foreign policy. Needless to say, the oligarchic control over Western media is too well known to deserve further comment.

The very fact that the President of Belarus holds that Western hostility is due to “external influences” strongly suggests that he is referring to financial and ethnic sources of power. This is important, since it goes to the heart of his social ideas. The state, at its best, is a source of moral authority and the public good. When the state is captured by alien elements, it then becomes merely a coercive agency of oligarchy. Therefore, in a rather roundabout way, Lukashenko is making the accusation that Western states are not public, but rather private, entities. If they were to become public entities once more, they would then drop their hostility to the Belarussian political system.

Conclusion

In grasping the political ideas of Lukashenko outside of its media distortion, many themes come up repeatedly:

A nationalism that stresses the economic security of his small country. Ethnicity and religion are important because they serve as a basis of solidarity for the basic economic concerns of the people.

The continual attack on “abstractions,” such as “human rights” or “economic freedom.” Since abstractions can mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean, they are used as covers for the exercise of colonialism and economic imperialism.

In cases of emergency, such as the meltdown of the Russian and Ukrainian economies in the early 1990s, the state has the responsibility to take the lead in protecting the population from oligarchy and foreign attack. This is especially the case in smaller and hence more vulnerable states.

No state can function when it is penetrated by oligarchy and the “free market” ideology. These care only about private goods, while the state serves the public good only. The state serves the public good when it uses its authority against concentrated economic power and self-interested foreign interference.

The state understands its role only in light of the historical experience and ethnic tradition(s) of its people.

Economics exists for the whole people. If it does not serve the public good, then it has no moral legitimacy, regardless of all “rights” talk to the contrary.

The state has a legitimate economic role in both media and economics. It has no right to rule these in a totalitarian fashion, but it, especially in times of stress, has a right to have its voice heard. A strong state sector is not the same as “tyranny.”

There is no real moral distinction between state control and oligarchic control.

The media is one of the world’s most powerful weapons. Hence, it should be regulated like any other weapon. Media elites are often oligarchical and centralized, and use their empires for the sake of controlling others. A free media, therefore, is a mixed one, with different points of view being permitted. This is far more the case in Russia and Belarus than it is in the US.

No government has the right to manipulate the internal affairs of another. This is especially the case when such interference is blatantly self-interested and serves the interest only of an economic oligarchy.

“The people” is another of these abstractions that mean nothing. To use the phrase “the people,” the speaker must be referring to a specific people, a specific language and historical tradition, as well as a specific social context.

International justice, if it means anything, refers to a state of affairs where the world’s ethnic groups, races and religions are given the independence to develop according to their own historical tradition, not the ideological slogans of the current hegemon.

International justice also implies objective and politically neutral international bodies that can mediate disputes outside of an ideological agenda. This is far from “world government,” but refers only to certain arrangements that can solve international problems in a neutral manner before they lead to mass warfare. This is especially sensitive in smaller states that have lost huge percentages of their population in wars. The fact that Belarus lost almost 30 percent of its population in the Second World War makes the average Belarussian a bit testy about the possibility of another shooting war on its soil.

Matt Johnson is a professional writer a former university professor specializing in Russian and Ukrainian history and theology. His doctoral dissertation at the University of Nebraska was on the nature of scientific methods as a conduit for political revolution. He has taught both at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Mount St. Mary’s University. He is the author of 5 books, the most recent is Russian Populist: The Political Theory of Vladimir Putin published by the Barnes Review Press. He hosts a radio program, The Orthodox Nationalist, on the Reason Radio Network.

91 Comments to "Social Nationalism: The Political Thought of Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus"

I have spent several months studying Belarus at my University in Minnesota. Two of my professors have published articles on the national identity in Belarus and I myself have spent a full week in Minsk learning about the issues discussed here. Although I only stumbled upon this blog after a google search, I feel compelled to comment. Your analysis on U.S. interests in Belarus may very well be correct, however, Lukashenko is a dictator who has sustained his power by unjustly imprisoning anyone who openly opposes him. I visited Minsk in January of 2011 and spoke with dozens of individuals who were fearful (rightfully so) of expressing their opinions because just weeks before, Lukashenko had arrested 600 peaceful protestors after he “won” an election rife with ballot stuffing and lies. Shortly after the election, he had all of his political opponents arrested. I’m afraid the picture you pain of Alexander Lukashenko is inaccurate. You have bought into his propaganda.

“If United States changed it’s form of government tomorrow to a National Socialist variety” heh heh what do you think we have right now? All major ideas in nineteenth century came from German Idealism, including state worship.

The guy who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST and racist
named Francis Bellamy (1892).. What? You didn’t learn that in the government school? Someone is suppressing such information for obvious reasons.

Look at this picture (warning- may give a heart attack). The Nutzis copied their “Roman” salute from the one used in American schools:

@Facio Libre:
what coul be said more?! your imminence tovaristch Facio, you’re compulitely rrright! you talk like one of joooz , who have “accumulated” so many dollars (12 t0 16 zeroes in account) so 5 to 8 generations to come are going to stay rich forever?! well nobody blames you yet in this FFFRRRREEE cuntry. Other peoples dont like such freedom, they want to have bread on table for their children and grand-grand…..-children(not kids, mind you, which is from animal terminology). But what if Americans will wake up soon? that would be time of reconing.

And what do we live in here in America today, Paradise? A man can’t even get a factory job that pays over $10/hr. in a lot of places. You can’t even begin to support a family on that. I’m not even going to go on and on about THIS hell-hole (as you put it) we call America. What I detect in JerryF and some others who have responded to this post is the fact that Dr. Johnson is a Russian Orthodox priest. It is amazing how infantile a (supposed) man can become when he is confronted with the need for religion to be a factor in the equation that makes for a workable nation.

I whole-heartedly concur with Gregor’s comments. I listen to Dr. Johnson’s radio show on reasonradionetwork.com and I highly recommend it. Dr Johnson’s shows are very informative and bring many interesting ideas to the table concerning Ethno-Nationalism. Thanks for having him here, Professor McDonald.

A very interesting article, but I’m not yet convinced that reality matches this very idealistic picture. E.g., from Wikipedia: “…On 1 June 2011 Belarus requested an economic rescue package from the International Monetary Fund.[138][139]…”
Meanwhile, we can all speculate on how to achieve the positive features that Johnson has painted and hope that at least some will turn out to be true for Belarus. (Consider the several efforts today to come up with a new monetary and banking system as sensible infrastructure.)
Johnson would not be the first to describe that part of the world in glowing terms. E.g., the numerous British who visited the Soviet Union, recently described by Pryce-Jones in, Treason of the Heart, and who were embarrassingly taken in by what they were allowed to see. Before accepting Johnson’s picture we would want to see a lot more hard data from independent sources.

Until that happens, the following links might be helpful to clear up some misconceptions:

The economy is teetering on the brink of collapse. With inflation hitting 35% and the currency having lost half its value, most people feel a lot poorer. There are restrictions on the sale of hard currency. People are queuing for weeks to change Belarusian roubles. And though fear and an inured tolerance of hardship tend to stifle protests, there are reports of strikes at some Belarusian plants.

The country’s Soviet-style command economy was never efficient and could be sustained only by foreign credit and huge Russian subsidies in the form of cheap energy and the ability to buy discounted Russian oil and sell on refined products at a markup. In the past five years Russia’s subsidy has fallen from the equivalent of 20% of GDP to only 7%.

I do recall how the piss-stream media went about selling the public on the SHAFTA a.k.a. NAFTA deal. Wolf ‘AIPAC’ Blitz of ZNN would invite some globalist whore like James Glassman who would then proceed to push some whale poop about ‘opening up export markets for American goods in Mexico’.
Hey, imagine how many new Cadillacs GM may be able to sell down there !
A 3rd world shytehole like Mexico was going to offer up GM a sales bonanza, you see.
Pedro who otherwise couldn’t come up with 10 pesos to buy his wife cornflour to feed their kids, was going to become a customer of GM.

If you read all these last comments about the hardships average White couples experience to have children,due to policies that are decided in high places,you suspect there is more going on than just economics. Global free trade that makes it difficult to compete with cheaply produced goods from the Third World,thus creating job loss,exorbitant mortgages that force women to work instead of having children,feminism that glorifies the unmarried state and promotes hostility towards (White) men,anti-natalism socalled to “save the planet from overpopulation” (an idea that appeals only to Whites) – all work together to lower the White birth rate to a sub-replacement level.Couple this artificially created low birth rate with mass non-White immigration and the omnipresent propaganda in the media for miscegenation,and you have the perfect formula for White genocide by indirect means.Are we really paranoid to suspect here a deliberate policy by that special ethnic group that considers us to be the “cancer of humanity”?Remember all key positions in politics,the economy,the media and education, where the decisions that promote this process are made, are occupied by exactly that ethnic group.
Should we not be alarmed and take counter-measures?

If money supply has doubled over the past ten years in Australia (check the RBA aggregates), then that’s the most likely cause for the house bubble, at least on the demand side. Land supply has been limited by State governments’ land release (drip-feed) policies, and anti-sprawl norms.

Upon further reflection, I think it’s worth highlighting the housing statistics Bear has given. The decline in affordability of housing, if true, is absolutely dramatic.

Let me repeat the numbers: in 1960, a house in Sydney/Melbourne cost the equivalent of 40 weeks of average male earnings. Today, a house costs the equivalent of 5.5 YEARS of labor.

If the same trend holds in the United States, I don’t know if there is more startling evidence of the damage to our welfare and the path toward enslavement from whatever factors (public policies? immigration? what?) that have been in play .

Fascinating thoughts Bear. Regarding the long mortgage repayment periods, would referring to long housing payment periods or high costs of homes or something of that nature be more direct and more clear? The first thing most people will think of when they read mortgage repayment period is long-term mortgages and that actually might be family friendly if it results in a lower annual payment.

I would be interested in seeing you explain what you mean by this sentence: “Factor in today amoral, libertine, philandering mass culture that often lead to wasted relationships lives and time.”

It would be great to have some reports here on feminism courses at university.

@Curmudgeon: I very much appreciate your comment. I hope to read more of them.

Up until fairly recently, the well-cared for people of countries like Denmark, Iceland and Norway, somewhat like Americans three to four decades ago, went about their working days happily unaware that they were “competing” with the unfortunate masses of easily exploited people in the Third World. It is my tiny belief that any person of power and influence who would want to subvert such relatively stable, prosperous, reasonable and happy situations, via “open borders” and other Globalist drivel, is not just misguided, but also evil.

There is plenty of evidence for this. Just one example that you are probably already well aware of: Before NAFTA was passed, the very people who pushed for it, as well as others, did studies about what would happen if it went through. Well, they concluded that what would happen would resemble what we have now. And they passed NAFTA anyway.

I was informed by the ‘team leader’ of a certain WholeFoods store situated in an upscale neighborhood that the reason behind phasing out of certain artisan products from Italy was their ‘high costs’. Apparently shoppers weren’t comfortable seeing $8.99 price tags on a 10 oz. jar of wild mushrooms in extra virgin olive oil. Besides being hand-made in small batches on a family farm, you’d very hard pressed finding anything vaguely resembling that product in terms of quality @ any price point.
Still, for the Mercedes Benz S-class driving dolts who patronize the WH in question, spending $9 turned out a bit too much to swallow – pardon the pun.

I’ll leave out the fact how they have to cough upwards of $10K each year to cover their local property tax bill.

It is very indicative of how modern America rolls, the reason I bring it up.
Cheap crap delivered fast.

In the 1960s this country had close to 60 shoe manufacturing companies. Allen Edmonds and Alden are all that is left today. Johston & Murphy reportedly keeps a small operation running in Tennessee. But that output is geared mostly toward Japanese market where consumers are wiling to pay for quality.

Otherwise the American shoe market is flooded with slave labor-produced shyte from Red China, India and Vietnam.

@Anon2:
I’ve been interested in the various social, psychological and financial factors effecting White fertility for a while.

My use of the term “biological lifespan” was a cumbersome way of pointing out that the long mortgage repayment periods that come out of immigration driven population growth and high housing prices lead to low White fertility.

In my own country of Australia average Sydney and Melbourn house prices were about 40 weeks weeks of average male weekly earnings in 1960 to 5.5 years today. Most of the extra income required has come from female (the wife’s income) so women must spend a much higher proportion of their lives in the workforce. It’s clear that houses have become 7 times more expensive to build but that a shortage of housing in good areas (those with good schools, neighbourhood, investment in infrastructure) has been bid up by high demand caused by immigration driven population growth.

As the mortgages get larger and require more female monetary input there is less time available for pregnancy and child rearing. In addition disrupting a career is more costly.

For instance, female fertility is realistically reliable between about 16 years of age to 36. A small percentage of women are fertile beyond 40 but it is a small percentages, many loose fertility at younger ages and so I consider this 20 year period a good average for estimation purposes.

Factor in Education, 4-5 years. Then add in a few years of low income, career building and another 4 years is gone before serious money is being earned. It will take another few years to get together a mortgage deposit which will then need to be serviced.

Factor in today amoral, libertine, philandering mass culture that often lead to wasted relationships lives and time.

When young teenage girls are asked how many children they want they generally give answers considerably higher than they achieve in latter life. This suggests that financial, social situation reduces their opportunity.

Another factor seems to be the “politically correct” war on motherhood. The early gender-marxists
spent a considerably effort deprecating a social structures and life options that might lead to larger families.

It seems to me that one of the implicit functions of certain type of feminism is to produce a cultural attitudes that reduces White febrility that went way beyond mere promotion of rights to contraception. So much feminist literature is written by ethnically conscious Jews and is directed at White women. I haven’t had the time yet to wade through the feminist literature necessary. Time for an evening uni course?

@Luke: I agree with your comments here. This system doesn’t protect Whites and has failed completely. So what is it worth? All the things I see going wrong in America live violent crime and corruption and laziness come from non-White groups. We have to admit these things to ourselves and speak openly about our right to survive. The idea of simply being replaced by latinos,etc. is grotesque. Personally, I’m ready for the hard choices you allude to because the alternative is unthinkable. Thanks for the comments.

First, Cubans own Cuba like Americans own the White House (can I camp there?).

Second, unlike genuine free trade, an approximation of which existed from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the start of WWI, the current system is profoundly flawed. The essential problem is that pure fiat currencies, the only that exist since 1971, are subject to massive and prolonged under- and over-valuations, some the result of deliberate mercantilist policies (Asian countries intervening to depress their currencies to favour exporters), others due to exogenous factors.

The fact is that until some sort of precious metal standard is restored, probably along the lines of the pre-WWI model, international prices are as likely to be distorted as domestic ones (eg. domestic house bubble).

Tariffs, Tobin taxes and other protectionist measures only compound the ills, as the cause is monetary.

I know FIRST HAND that Belarus is a hell-hole and the economy only looks good on paper. The black market (free market) is used to prop up his “social market” there are two sets of books for everything, the government has institutionalized this deceit and the people must convert to foreign currency to by anything and save for the future. This article, for anyone who Knows personally as I do or who is willing to do a little research, will give the impression that O.O. is full of shit. This article should be taken down immediately its an embarrassment to the otherwise diligent writers on this site.

@Pierre de Craon: I will try to keep my response brief.
Any law is regulatory in nature. In the past 40 years virtually everything that has been deregulated has been good for business and bad for people. Real wages have been suppressed because the worker is “competing” on an un-level playing field. Japanese electronics and cars flooded the world. It was virtually impossible to sell electronics and car parts into Japan. South Korea had special laws in place for Hyundi to ensure cheap steel exports. A famous basketball player was paid more hype a basketball shoe than the annual cost of all wages in the Taiwanese factory that produced them. Health and safety regulations are non-existant in 3rd world countries.

How, and more importantly, why should American, Canadian, or European workers have to compete with the 3rd world workers who, in many cases have no use for the products they produce. The Japanese electronics sold into the US and Canada cannot be used in Japan due to the different electrical current. Japanese drive right hand drive vehicles, left hand drive vehicles are of no use to them.
Most of my son’s hockey equipment is made in that hockey powerhouse Bangladesh.

Don’t buy imported goods? I have attempted for years to buy local whenever possible. That goes for goods as well as stores. It has come to the point that there are very few things that can be bought locally or nationally. Why? gone out of business. Here is a real life example. Years ago, I was in a store looking for shirts. I found one that I liked, made in Canada, price $20. I kept looking for an identical shirt and found one, $20 – but made in Singapore. I asked one of the clerks if they had another one made in Canada. No, they had changed suppliers. So, now I’m paying $20 for the same shirt made by someone earning less than 1/10 th the Canadian worker, pays no taxes in Canada, buys no goods made in Canada, purchases no services in Canada, and earns the “supplier” a much higher profit. The Canadian worker ended up being laid off, has less money to spend on anything other than shelter and food. How has that helped me or any other Canadian, except perhaps the “supplier”? It is, like compound interest, part of the law of diminishing returns.

The issue is that corporations now run governments. Old US anti-trust laws would have broken up the oligopolies that control the dairy farms in New York. Once the conglomerates gain control, prices always go up. “Free Trade” deals now prevent breaking them up.

As for inflated cost dairy products, Canada has had, for many years a successful programme for dairy supply. Are the prices higher? Yes, but the control is in production and price paid to the farmer/producer. Large corporations are here, but the playing field is levelled for the farmer. The US, and to a certain extent Canada have had cheap food policies. These favour conglomerates, who are often subsidized, and often do not reflect the real cost of production.
Once your food is offshored, your country is doomed.

I am duly humbled. My nephew, Henry Johnston, who actually lives in Russia, has corrected my perhaps naive view of Mr. Lukashenko. As for Dave Seville, I do think “race” (or race) is important, but it is difficult to me to understand it in the abstract, apart from religion, spirituality and culture. It seems to me that what is essentially important about Caucasians, for example, is the teaching or imagination for, or feeling for, or sense of, what is transcendent, and this link with the transcendent or supernatural is reflected in patriarchal families, monogamy, and social structures (e.g., the churches). Being merely ‘white’ would not seem to me to be adequate in order to affirm or carry on this supernatural link. These are complex matters, but all I meant to say that emphasis on race alone does not seem to me to include this necessary link with culture.

In former communist countries, the opposition were driven out or killed. Everyone left behind had to play by the communists’ rules. In order to enter college, one had to belong to the Communist party. The people now in charge of Belarus may have a better plan for their country, but they are reluctant to throw mud at their communist ancestors, irritating many. Of course, you-know-who are lurking in the background, always looking to profit from internal strife.

I’m was born European and I live in America. I also know many other Europeans same as I. Enough said..

Look! America is a good country. We just got too multicultural for our own good. The only good Multi-Culti is of the European variety. We need to turn back the tide, and put the country on a path to becoming more white again. That can only happen by dislodging Jewish power elite.

And the way to do that is not by giving more power to the Government, which by the way, is totally controlled by Zionist forces (Jews) but, by taking power away from it.

You make a good argument but, I just don’t see how White Nationalists are going to capture power in the US Government and then make top to bottom revolutionary societal changes. Are we assuming WN are going to be voted in? Or, are we talking about an armed revolution? You know what I mean? There’s no way in hell of that happening in America, be it through ballot or through an armed struggle. It’s just not going to happen.

I think it’s more realistic to develop, or cultivate rather, a White Civil Society for the purpose of getting our people on board. Too many White people still don’t think there even is a problem… or at least are not saying it out loud. That needs to change.

If United States changed it’s form of government tomorrow to a National Socialist variety, as far as demographics go, nothing would change. We would basically have a multicultural dictatorship. Considering the aftermath of the events of 9/11, we are already well on our way there..

What needs to happen is a change in the mentality of White peoples. Whites need to wake up from the Jewish induced hypnosis of multiculturalism and stop being suicidal. We need to instill in our people a sense of unapologetic white pride. We need not be chauvinists just very assertive in the pursuits of our interests.. and, the only way to do this my friend, is by demanding more freedom for the individual, not less. If you are not free to discriminate, you are not free.

If we were free from not having been forced to pay for minority welfare, health care, education, etc. that would put us on the road to realistic reconquering of our country without firing a shot. That’s why I support Ron Paul in the short term.. in the long run we need to bring Whites on board with us..

I have been a reader of Occidental and like-minded publications for several years and have not once
encountered a piece which summoned as much disgust as the above glorification of President Lukashenko.
It is indeed a sad state of affairs when we pin our hopes on a third-rate Soviet-holdover apparatchik
with no reservations about continuing (to the extent possible) the policies of his NKVD and KGB predecessors.
Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric — this is the same worn-out Soviet tactic of infantilization of the people
mixed with violent, brutal oppression, all under the banner of pleasantly nationalist, quasi-spiritual anti-
Western mantras. Western intellectuals have been looking to Holy Rus for generations for the antidote
to Western imperialism, capitalism and nihilism. Unfortunately such intellectuals, as I am afraid Mr. Johnson
is an excellent example, fall too easily under the sway of rhetoric and romantic impressions of Russia.
For those who have been following the news, Lukashenko’s fairy-tale land is falling to pieces as we speak.
Moscow’s independent and opposition newspaper “Novaya Gazeta” has recently run a series of excellent pieces on the fallout of the December election crackdown, when virtually all the opposition was rounded up and arrested. An
atmosphere of fear permeates Belorussian society and people have begun to mistrust their own neighbors. Inflation
is rampant and banks are no longer allowing foreign currency transactions. As for “preservation of the people”,
I thought it was this type of Orwellian nonsense that Occidental readers were supposed to call out in the mainstream press. Terrorizing a population is and never will be a way to preserve a people.

A few grammatical mistakes, corrected, that I did not catch at the end – sorry

An important thing to add to this well intentioned – I presume that the underlying hope is to preserve Belarusian people – overly ameliorative depiction of the Lukashenko regime is that Russification, to the expense of Belaurusian culture and language, is not something that has happened inadvertently, incidentally and without deliberate force, including control of the media, election rigging, beatings, jailing of dissenters – and murder. True Belarusian nationalists are not only against being integrated with the West, they are against being subsumed in a Russian empire as well: While I might have distinguished between Lukashenko’s populist policy, which would officially endorse Belarusian language, the reality is that Russian is spoken except by old people in the villages. Russians are only 11% of the population, but it is the language overwhelmingly spoken, of the young and the popular culture; moreover, Russification is indeed, an imposed fact, to the insult of Belarusian sovereignty – e.g., the main thoroughfare in Minsk, once named after Belarusian hero, Francis Skaryna, is now called “Nezavisimosti”, graced with a statue to Felix Dziezinski, the Jewish founder of the K.G.B., who is responsible for the mass murder of Belarusians – streets and plazas are named after him as well – e.g., in Grodno. The top floor of the museum in Grodno is a veritable shrine to the Kremlin and the Soviet Revolution – etc.

While we can agree that preservation of the Belarus people (what I am calling their DNA) is first and foremost against the greatest threat – the west – whatever it takes, whatever it takes does take more than unmitigated acceptance of Lukashenko – his violence against those whose patriotism runs deeper than his and his Russian leaning point of view. Belarusians have been bitter enemies with Russians as well – more than any other people. Thus, if true Belarusian patriots are not to be forced, by reaction, into the waiting arms of the CIA/ZOG, Soros, the international corporations, even if seen as a provisional tactical alignment – which can, in reality, lead to even greater destruction of their people – then, if we are true to the call of nationalism as opposed to internationalism, we must give greater recognition and support for their language, culture, and nation as distinct from Russian and a Russian empire – even if we, knowing what the west can do, do not yet appreciate the importance of this distinction and see Russia as the lesser of the evils as a power alliance.

An important thing to add to this well intentioned – I presume that the underlying hope is to preserve Belarusian people – overly ameliorative depiction of the Lukashenko regime is that Russification, to the expense of Belaurusian culture and language, is not something that has happened inadvertently, incidentally and without deliberate force, including control of the media, election rigging, beatings, jailing of dissenters – and murder. True Belarusian nationalists are not only against being integrated with the West, they are against being subsumed in a Russian empire as well: While I might have distinguished between Lukashenko’s populist policy, which would officially endorse Belarusian language, the reality is that Russian is spoken except by old people in the villages. Russians are only 11% of the population, but it is the language overwhelmingly spoken, of the young and the popular culture; moreover, Russification is indeed, an imposed fact, to the insult of Belarusian sovereignty – e.g., the main thoroughfare in Minsk, once named after Belarusian hero, Francis Skaryna, is now called “Nezavisimosti”, graced with a statue to Felix Dziezinski, the Jewish founder of the K.G.B., who is responsible for the mass murder of Belarusians – streets and plazas are named after him as well – e.g., in Grodno. The top floor of the museum in Grodno is a veritable shrine to the Kremlin and the Soviet Revolution – etc.

While we can agree that preservation of the Belarus people (what I am calling their DNA) is first and foremost against the greatest threat – the west – whatever it takes, whatever it takes does take more than unmitigated acceptance of Lukashenko – his violence against those whose patriotism runs deeper than his and his Russian leaning point of view. Belarusians have been bitter enemies with Russians as well – more than any other people. Thus, if true Belarusian patriots are not to be forced, by reaction, into the waiting arms of the CIA/ZOG, Soros, the international corporations, even if seen as a provisional tactical alignment – which can, in reality, lead to even greater destruction of their people – then, if we are true to the call of internationalism as opposed to internationalism, we must give greater recognition and support for their distinct language, culture, and nation as distinct from Russian and a Russian empire – even if we, knowing what the west can do, do not yet appreciate the importance of this distinction and see Russia as the lesser of the evils as a power alliance.

When out of the entire political spectrum, the communist parties of Russia, Ukraine and to a lesser degree Belarus are among the sole judeo-skeptics, you realize the irony became delicious enough to taste. In fairness, Ukraine does have a semi-robust nationalist movement which is extremely Jew-aware. But they don’t get much traction on the national level as their main battles seem to be with Russia. Every couple-three years their activists in Lviv may stage a re-enactment of WWII local battles complete with German uniforms and light arms v. the Red Army. Apart from the amusement factor for Ukrainians, events such as this tend to irritate the living piss out of the Jews.
Lukashenko himself can be described as judeo-neutral, btw.

@Felix Grubel: Indeed, market mysticism is really ridiculous. At some time, for some products free market may be a good idea and some times not. Anyone realizes that a free market for shampoo might be good, whereas a global free market for nuclear weapons is not. Clearly, this example generalizes.

What is interesting is if it is in the interests of the nation and its people. The market should, as you rightly pointed out, be subordinate to the political and cultural. That does obviously not mean that the state should produce everything, but that the economy serves rather than being served.

Johnson certainly is right on the criminal John McCain, traitor son of the USS Liberty traitor. And I agree with his analysis of the rape of Russia by the Harvard brigade.
Here’s Jeff Gates giving McCain a hard time:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LYhmc2VD-0

@Curmudgeon: Sir: Please forgive me for going somewhat off-topic. Having read your comments with interest and care, I must say that it seems to me that, unfortunately, you have largely succeeded in tying yourself up in knots using a rope of your own weaving.

Here’s a capsulized version of what I mean. First, you write, “Government’s role is to regulate.” Now, I hope you will grant that the nature and role of government is something that reasonable and unreasonable men have been arguing about for at least two dozen centuries. Whatever one’s position, however, I absolutely grant that it’s fair to say that regulating is something government does, whether for good or ill.

You then write, “Without regulation there is lawlessness.” In historical terms that is true, I suggest, only if you define lawlessness as “disobedience to what the government declares law to be.” In other words, you might just as well write, “Without regulation there is regulationlessness.” I think you must agree that this last statement, whatever else it may be, is uninformative.

Finally comes what I see as your crucial comment: “Another way of looking at it is asking the question: ‘How does this imported good benefit the country?'” Surely you see that, in the government-heavy state under which we Americans live and suffer, the sole institution to which your question can reasonably be directed is the government itself, to which you seem to call upon us all to surrender even more of our trust and our liberties than we have done—better, than it has already wrested from us by main force. The government, after all, is the entity that decides what gets imported and what doesn’t. If you say that that isn’t so, please tell me why every American pays triple what sugar costs on the world market, and then tell me why the residents of many states, including my own, pay similarly inflated prices for dairy products. (The claim, of course, is that dairy “imports” must be restricted to protect, say, New York dairy conglomerates [mostly Jewish owned] from cutthroat “foreign” competitors . . . from New Jersey.) The main point is that no one (at least no Gentile) who asks that question (i.e., “How does this imported good benefit the country?”) is likely to get any response at all. And should repetition of the question become annoying to the folks questioned, the questioner will soon find himself with a tapped phone and an audited tax return. And need I add “that’s just for starters”?

Several decades ago, in replying to someone who wanted to regulate (i.e., restrict) imports (i.e., regulate them even more than they already are regulated), Murray Rothbard tellingly said, “Look, if you don’t want to buy imported goods, no one is forcing you to.” Back then, I found this comment inarguable and I still find it so. Indeed, all by itself it persuaded me to abandon my own wholehearted support for protectionism. The only alternative, I think, to accepting individual responsibility is to assume that people who are too stupid to decide what they will and won’t buy must then be led by the hand to do the right thing by their government. But what if that government is the creature, not of white Christian, post-Christian, or anti-Christian American voters, but of a hostile internationalist elite, a supremacist cabal with a pied-à-terre (actually a mail drop) on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean? What then?

I suggest that the latter situation is precisely what we have now. I suggest further that white Americans need to stiffen their back and face the unpleasant truth that government is their sworn enemy. It will simply never act in their interests. Until the day that white Americans regain their freedom from Tribal domination, that situation will remain unchanged. Until then, any Lukashenko (or Obama or Bush Jr. or Clinton) that comes along will be their stand-in, not ours.

Please think about this: do you truly want to live in a United States that is nothing but a mutatis mutandis Cuba? Darn it, aren’t we halfway there already?

The free ride for Belarus ended shortly after the State Department asset, president Yushchenko of Ukraine got wiped out @ the polls by a pro-Russian rival in the course of the his re-election bid.
In a rather bizarre twist, Bush the Lesser’s NGOs along with Ukrainian agents of his presumed arch-foe George Soros joined forces to bring Yushchenko to power as the new ‘democratic’ and pro-western alternative to a corrupt and mobbed up outgoing president Kuchma. (His kosher son-in-law is one of Ukraine’s notorious oligarchs.) Campaign that came to be known as the ‘Orange Revolution’ is largely remembered for breathless reporting and one-sidedness on the part of American piss-stream media. From Rupert Murdoch operation down to the ‘liberal’ ZNN and PMS-MSNBC all appeared to have been mouthing off the exact same talking points.

With a new Kremlin-friendly leadership in Kiev, Lukashenko effectively ceased being the only game in town as far as favorable terms for the transit of Russian energy exports westward are concerned . This new reality would permit Moscow to start phasing out previous arrangements by which Russian oil and gas to Belarus used to be sold @ discounted prices. Policy which Lukashenko became fairly accustomed to during years prior, as Belarus would later refine the subsidized Russian oil imports and sell them on open market for a handsome profit.

Another major irritant in Lukashenko’s relations with Putin & Co. was his stubborn refusal to allow Russian state monopolies to acquire whole or at least gain controlling stake in the strategic and/or leading state enterprises of Belarus. A collateral of sorts, aimed @ demonstrating the future viability of Belarus as a paying customer.
In terms of Lukashenko personally, what is beyond dispute is that he happens to be a a police state running washed up commie who wrapped himself in the nation’s flag. Tactic not exactly uncommon among the communist residue leadership of the ex-Soviet states.
Just this past April as the Belarus economy was bursting @ the seams, completely out blue the subway station in Minsk gets bombed. (Unlike Russia, Belarus doesn’t have to grapple with a restless mohammedan minority à la Chechens.) Upwards of 12 dead, plus scores of injured. Within 48 hours the KGB had the ‘perps’ nabbed ! And you thought the FBI were super quick in identifying ‘all 19 hijackers’, eh ?

@Franklin Ryckaert: Bingo, Brother Ryckaert. I advocate constantly for an exclusive white ethnostate, since I think it’s a fools dream to ever retake the entire North American continent. In fact, I understand that ethnostates are going to be a topic of discussion at the upcoming NPI Conference in D.C. on the 9th of September. This is good news, because whites need to get this ball rolling before we are a minority – because our parasites are not going to allow us to separate without a bloody fight.

@Facio Libre: I never said that Europe was not multicultural, nor that it did not have a bucket-load of other serious problems. Also, saying that people would want to live here rather in a Mexico or a Pakistan is not much of a compliment to America, is it?

People that don’t have mortgages have a lot more time for autonomous political activism.

Absolutely. The negotiable, UCC conformed, legal tender denominated usury interest mortgage is the first thing to be eliminated from white economic life. It needs to be replaced by community focused “mutual aid building societies” and “labor banks” .

This, local food production and neighborhood designs that minimize vehicle requirements will go a long way to freeing our people from the merciless grip of the controllers of the Federal Reserve “System”.

Two thumbs up! We need a flood of articles like this. The White Experience of Christendom extends far past that little island off the coast of France and its narrow Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist patterns of good think.

A number of posters refer to individualism as being a trait of whites. That may be true, but until the influx of Jews and other non-whites, it was individualism within the context of a society or local community as a whole. Individualism did not mean flaunting loose morals, dishonesty, thuggery, or any of the other disagreeable qualities that European societies found objectionable. People with those qualities were considered social outcasts. Today, they are considered individualistic, or “cool”.

@Trenchant: Property only has value if someone else wants to buy it. More than twenty years ago, I was speaking out against the FTA which then became NAFTA. “Free trade” and freedom of thought/liberty are not necessarily harmonious. When corporations can dictate a country’s economic policy, freedom of thought and liberty soon vanish. To paraphrase someone else, when a country loses control of its natural resources, loses control of its agricultural policies, and runs up large debts to foreign creditors, it ceases to be a country. The US, Canada, Mexico, and the EU countries have ceased to be countries.
Cuba is far from perfect, but at least Cubans still own their country. North Korea barely survived the slaughter by the USAF 60 years ago. Why would the trust anything the US was involved in.

It is interesting to note, that Iceland’s recent economic problems started after their “new right” came to power in the early 90’s. Previously, the government had considerable involvement in the economy. Growth was managed. Immigration was low, birth rate high. Foreign “advice” was not so much sought as observed to determine if it could be adapted for the benefit of all. Income disparity was compressed. The focus of innovation was on what could improve industries upon which their country depended. That was a model that served them well. It was not unlike the model described in this article. Interestingly, the country’s credo for hundreds of years was “with laws is the country built”.

Even Freemason Benjamin Franklin noted that the merchant had no country. Obviously, there was an element of distrust for such a statement to be made. Government’s role is to regulate. Without regulation there is lawlessness. Two hundred + years ago, staying in business meant keeping your word and being honourable, because you dealt with people you saw on a regular basis. Today, that means being squeezed out by the dishonest who take their directions from multinationals.
Another way of looking at it is asking the question: “How does this imported good benefit the country?” If it will lead to the destruction of an internal business, it shouldn’t be brought in. Wall Street would have you believe your puny investment is market forces. It isn’t. The market only moves when tens of millions move, and that means the people controlling the economy.

“For instance the ‘market demands’ more open borders (immigrant labour), the market demand less regulation (more room for financial speculation and the debt fueled bidding up of housing and land prices to the biological lifespan)”

@Luke:
A system based on universal principles allowing great individual freedoms to its citizens works only for Whites.Others will invariably misuse it for parasitical purposes.Whether it is the “high” parasitism of the Jews,the “low” parasitism of the Blacks or the “middle” parasitism of Asians,they all will corrode the system untill it finally collapses.Exclusivism is the answer.

@Facio Libre: I too, often have wondered about this. Here is what I have concluded the answer might be: Pro-White, white racial realists who adopt this position are basically admitting that it would be literally impossible to solve the jewish problem without using totalitarian methods which would have to be administered by a totalitarian, pro-white system of government. I think we all will accept the fact that jews have become very adept at subverting, corrupting, and seizing near absolute dominant control over the system of government that our 100 percent White European Founding Fathers bequeathed to their White descendants here in America, right? That alone shows a clear weakness in our system, because it did not build in the necessary protections against a highly predatory ethnic group – who, even as far back as the founding of America – were already well known and had a richly deserved reputation for being subverters and destroyers of White Christian societies.

This awareness is what I perceive to be the primary motivation for white racial realists to crave a different system, perhaps even a totalitarian one – to safeguard against another future attack and subversion by the world’s #1 nation wreckers.

Personally, I think whites are uniquely suited to reside within nations that are not totalitarian and which have strictly limited, strictly shackled federal governments. Whites are individualists and highly self-sufficient, as compared to other racial groups. However, to obtain that sort of nation again – to preserve our liberties, there has to be an exception made that will provide us with the necessary defense against a predatory ethnic group such as the jews.

With such defense mechanisms built in to our system of government – which could simply be accomplished by a prohibition on allowing these predators to reside inside our nations, with no exceptions allowed – whites could once again live in a free society. That is what I feel would be the ideal situation, but getting there will require an ingredient of no-nonsense, ruthlessness and a no-apology approach to erecting our defense mechanisms.

Excellent article Mr. Johnson. I look foreword to reading more from you.
I believe this is the key: “…economic policy that serves its national interests…” That is the interests of ALL the people of a nation. Western elites are only interested in themselves which is why populist nationalism is so repugnant to them. Starting with Hitler and continuing along to Mohammad Mosaddegh, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ho Chi Minh, Mahathir bin Mohamad, Hugo Chávez and now Mr. Lukashenko the demonizing drum beat goes on. A modern maxim, “the more the mainstream vilifies a leader, the better the leader is for the people”

@john sumner:
Well I don’t know what the word means to you, but to me it means minding my own business, and not stealing others’ property or harming them unless they steal or attack me. Libertarianism isn’t libertinism, for the record. Besides, what is wrong with “rugged individualism”? Does that mean you have to have no community spirit, like some Ayn Rand cartoon?

Lukashenko is clearly an ethno-nationalist with the real interest of his own people at heart,as it should be.That this ideology of ethno-nationalism is the right one is abundantly proven by its brilliant success in Belarus.

Lukashenko’s ideology is statism, not ethno-nationalism. Btw, this article has some serious weaknesses. A few examples:

There is no real moral distinction between state control and oligarchic control.

Johnson claims that Lukashenko has “become one of the most popular politicians in the Slavic world.” Any sources confirming that information? In Russia, he is widely regarded as a rather ridiculous, simple-minded character, especially due to his background (and mindset) as a former chairman of a Soviet kolkhoz.

It’s sometimes hard to believe that Johnson is NOT working for Lukashenko’s propaganda department:

For Belarus, the worker will be involved in all levels of economic decision making and will have some control over the economic life he enjoys.

Of course, in a monolithic state like Lukashenko’s Soviet-style Belarus, the average worker has minimial or no control “over the economic life he enjoys.”

A free media, therefore, is a mixed one, with different points of view being permitted. This is far more the case in Russia and Belarus than it is in the US.

There is only one well-known anti-Putinist newspaper in the whole of Russia (novaya gazeta). Less is known about the situation in Belarus, but Johnson does not convince anyone but himself that Lukashenko’s Belarus is a “mayak” of liberty.

The state serves the public good when it uses its authority against concentrated economic power and self-interested foreign interference.

The state does a lot of things, including things that have nothing to do with any normal definition of “public good” (a semantic whore in the mouths of many autocrats).

Lukashenko is simply a buffoonish thug-go on youtube and watch a few videos of him, he makes LBJ look magisterial. He’s absolutely not defending the average Belorussian, he’s in it for his own greed and cult of personality. Just because he’s not invited to Davos and isn’t an IMF globalist approved “leader” doesn’t make him a patriotic ethno-nationalist. I have several close friends from Belarus (and no they aren’t Jews) and they hate him for the simple reason that he’s crushed the life out of the economy and most importantly they are never sure when they might get arrested and thrown in some godawful prison simply because they aren’t fervent enough supporters of him. Lukashenko is a low rent political thug with blood on his hands.

It’s worth looking at how the Icelandic banking default occured as it represents an exellent controlled experiment of what Washington and Wall street elite economics really produces. A well functioning banking and finance sector was deregulated to look like the US system and that of London. Soon housing prices doubled relative to income.

From a White nationalist perspective what we saw is a redistribution of wealth from the working and middle classses to financial elites, while most people were pushed and cowed into long term debt slavery.

Furthermore this sort of finacial stress leads to reduced fertillity as couples put of marriage and child birth in order to service debts they must now have, this is exactly what we are seeing in the White west. The declining birth rate is then used to argue for more immigration which only drives up housing prices further.

The ‘economy is there to serve the people’ not the other way around is actually Nationalist thinking and it is the thing of Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus. Unfortunatly economists such as Milton Friedman, Allan Greenspan and Author Tomas Friedman have turned the “market” from a mechanism set up for buying an selling certain things into an revered moral and ethical adjudicator. Unsuprisingly what the market demands coincides with Jewish ethnic interests. For instance the ‘market demands’ more open borders (immigrant labour), the market demand less regulation (more room for financial speculation and the debt fueled bidding up of housing and land prices to the biological lifespan)

They’ve managed to pull a slight of hand in making us think the form of market capitalism they have engineered is somehow natural.

It occurs to me that maybe the Sharia compliant banking systems that Islamic economists have developed since the 1970s might be adopted to help break the Jewish domination of finance and accumulation of wealth that so undermines our racial soverignty.

People that don’t have mortgages have a lot more time for autonomous political activism.

@Trenchant: That’s nice about Sweden. I did not even mention it, though. Anyway, that country still makes this one look like a turd. Also,
“economic freedom” and “Libertarianism” are not synonymous, especially for people who have to do real work to make a living.

Sweden’s welfare state, although impoverishing, was drawing from the enormous wealth accumulated over a century up till the 1950’s (avoiding wars helps), a period in which the country was a paragon of economic freedom.http://mises.org/daily/2259/The-Sweden-Myth

Yeah sure, there are many things we like about Europe. So what?!! There are many things that are great and uniquely American too. If United States was a shitty country, we would not have an immigration problem – knucklehead.

The points you make are nonstarters.. The people who adore all the things about Europe you mentioned are also the ones who usually vote Democrat and are the same dupes who are largely responsible for this multicultural mess.

Think of National Socialism as another word for Technocracy. If you don’t know what that is, why don’t you go to You Tube and look up “smart meter,” or better yet, type in “the dangers of smart meters.” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fndf2EciSg ) Many of you keep forgetting that National Socialism can be multicultural as well. You can also have intercontinental socialism too… aka Communism or it’s bastard, modern day child, the perfect synthesis, cloaked under the name Communitarianism. A world wide technocracy with the Jewish elite at the top of the food chain.

Whoever runs any given society gets to define what a nation is, and guess what? That ain’t you. Let me ask you this: If you were to live in your ideal national socialist utopia, do you imagine yourself as one of those Technocrats, the one who tells others how to live their lives, or one of those who’s being told what to do? If the latter, you can bet your ass that you’d be much happier in a society that puts the rights of individuals at it’s center.

I noticed that one of the major problems with all these National Socialist Utopia fantasies is not taking into account modern day technologies. Fascism/Marxism ( both ideologies are pretty close if you ask me) are creeping up on us in America. United States is moving away from a free society and that is the problem.. the problem is not too much freedom but not enough..

Basically what I am saying is that a national socialism does not automatically mean an ethnocentric state and a free state does not have to mean multicultural dystopia. Let us not forget that the multicultural nightmare didn’t began till after 1960’s.. Multiculturalism is not the fruit of a free state but the result of a carefully engineered policy by a hostile elite. Lets keep our eye on the ball, huh?

Give us our police state, not the zionists’! Sounds great. Cuba and North Korea have to beat people off from migrating to their workers’ paradises.

Without private property there exist no genuine money prices, so no economizing can take place. Even Lenin recognized that War communism would have wiped out the country through famine had it continued, and was forced to back-track (NEP).

The USSR didn’t collapse because their leaders ran out of power-lust. It went broke. The Reich was never going to last one thousand years, no socialism ever has.

Ok, here’s what I’ve read about Lukashenko. I may be way off base here, so correct me if I’m wrong:

First, from a Belorussian WN who posts over at Stormfront, true Belorussian nationalists are having a very hard time over there. They’re being denied the right to fly the flag of Belarus and national coat of arms in public and are being arrested any time they try to speak out. Also, Lukashenko has built some kind of bizarre giant Chinatown in Minsk as a means of drumming up investment by large Chinese firms, as well as selling land to the country of Oman.

Separately, I’ve also read that group public laughter and clapping has been outlawed due to the fact that great crowds of people would laugh and cheer sarcastically at Lukashenko’s speeches as their only form of protest. Once Lukashenko caught onto what was going on, he outlawed the laughter and cheering. Also, many Belorussians are feeling like their own culture is being marginalized and traded in for Russian culture and they have no way to speak out against it.

Is any of this true? I’d like to actually hear from someone in Belarus on this issue. I’m a National Socialist, and as such, I’ll be the first one to give credit to Lukashenko if he deserves it, but from what I’ve been reading, he sounds like yet another tin pot dictator who thinks he’s going to make a big name for himself in Russia, reinvent the Soviet Union on his own terms, and grind his own people down under his thumb.

Americans who have been lucky enough to have spent a meaningful amount of time in Europe, especially in countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and Germany, tend to come away with feelings of wonder and even envy– that is, if they are not of the jingoistic, pathetically stupid sort, whose numbers are embarrassingly large.

I mean, that efficient and vast public transportation sure is nice. The relative order, beauty and cleanliness of most public areas sure is enjoyable. It sure is a pleasure to see most people looking healthy, alert, intelligent and pleasant. It is a happy surprise to discover that it is not at all unusual for a person to be comfortable in three or even four languages. Oh, and those health care systems sure are nice.

“Why don’t we have these things in America, Dad?”

“Oh, I don’t understand myself, son, but I can tell you that America is the best country in the world. You can be sure of that.”

“Cool. Aren’t we going to Orlando for our next vacation?”

Libertarianism is not only dubious in and of itself, especially when considering its loudest and most famous advocates, it is also completely unrealistic now. We are no longer a frontier nation. We no longer have vast spaces of untouched, fertile land and seemingly endless natural resources. We are no longer a country in which a widespread attitude of “rugged individualism” makes any sense. And, even though we have not been such a nation for decades and decades, great numbers of us still take these notions of a government run by libertarians seriously.

@Caryl Johnston:
Obsession with race? Race and genetics are indeed very important and worth a great deal of attention. It is race that shapes the culture of nation; non-racial nationalism is a contradiction. I see by your use of scare quotes around the word that you either don’t take race seriously or don’t believe it exists. A shame and a pity.

A fine and inspiring article by an intelligent and morally serious writer. Indeed, outstanding – a real step up from the usual obsession over “race.” The Honorable Mr. Lukashenko seems actually to be able to think, and his ideas, by incorporating domains of the spiritual and the moral, actually embody realism and a good form of practical wisdom. What a difference to the morally decadent West. The comments about abstractions and abstract thinking are profound.

I know less than nothing about Belarus. But I have no belief at all in Robin Hood in any shape, form or fashion. As far as “rights” of any kind, other then “legal”, they are a pathetic mythology even more imaginary than the easter bunny, and the eternal tools of tyrants at every place and time. “Rights” are the cry of the weak manipulated and used by dictators. As long as we refuse to understand and accept that practically every organism in this world lives by the death and destruction of other organisms, we will live in the lala land of politics and religion, denying reality and suffering the consequences.

As far as McCain is concerned two terms come to mind any time I see his name: Stockholm Syndrome and traitor.

@Facio Libre:
Individualism,especially in its economic form of libertarianism is the Achilles heel of the White man.Group survival demands group behaviour,especially when your competitors behave themselves as groups (that is all non-European peoples,including Jews).
And have you yourself set foot in Belarus that you can base your passionate denunciation on personal experience?

I wonder if their success is based on better demographics, that is, a higher quality population? The same thing seems to be true of Sweden; they do fairly well under both free-market and semi-socialist regimes.

For the most part, free market nations perform better (and certainly much better than totalitarian countries), but at some point, advocates of capitalism will have to face an uncomfortable truth: A semi-socialist high quality population does better than a free-market low IQ population. The most important factor seems to be the nature of the population, not the economic system in place. This seems true, unless you have some flat-out communist system in place, which then overwhelms even a quality population.

Matt, I do not care to antagonize the essence of your approval of Lukashenko – because I am a radical in the sense that I value our DNA above all else and with that, recognize the necessity of sovereign European nations to preserve their DNA as distinctive.

Having said that, personally, and to the chagrin of hard core Belarusian nationalists, I can ignore that the Belarusian media is controlled and the elections are rigged such that political opposition is thwarted by force and not so much a matter of popular persuasion as your article indicates. The economy has also been having it’s rough times lately – not so easy for the people there, especially as of the past few months. I am willing to grant that can be largely due to deleterious western machinations; and am not highly moved on that account personally, as I do not feel the pinch – because I value DNA above all, I do not care to make a big deal about these political and economic matters. Belarus has been able to maintain itself as more than 85% native; about 11% Russian.

Also because I am most concerned about DNA, I do not feel so acutely the dying and overwhelming of the Belarussian language by Russian language and Russification – however, it is felt by true Belarusian nationalists that with the death of the language comes the death of Belarusian nationalism, whence its submersion into Russification will be finalized. True Belarusian nationalists, who identify as White, and who know what Jews are about, have been infiltrated, thwarted and jailed by the modern version of the KGB. For those who really care about Belarusian people the most, the true Belarusian nationalists, the regime in Belarus is weak, culturally, aiding and abetting a crass, material, Russian cosmopolitanism; while smearing Belarusians loyal to their language and distinct heritage as Bulbash – potato eaters – they are not cool, these are only old people, these who speak Belarusian and who are loyal to Belaurusian history and language – only the Russians are cool. This Russification is an insidious matters that is being glossed over.

I am Polish and I have been in Belarus a couple of times. I have to say it’s a neat country with happy and proud people, I envy them they are not members of the totalitarian nightmare state of the EU. Unfortunately it’s not easy for Lukashenko and the Belarussian people at all. Jews are still trying to overthrow him and create a pro-EU government over there. They are using especially the Polish minority to achieve this, they even created a TV “Bielsat” so that they can spread Jewish propaganda into Belarus. In Poland there is an ongoing campaign against current political system in Belarus – we hear in the media that they have “tyranny”, “lack of human rights”, “opression”, when in fact we in Poland have the real tyranny and we are being opressed by the media who constantly mock our national symbols. This is a nightmare world we are living in here in Poland (because of the Jews – let’s face it). I wouldn’t know why the media promote things they do were it not for Kevin Macdonald who “opened my eyes”.

I’m not sure if it’s even worth leaving a comment. The points made in this article are so detached from reality, I wonder if the author of this article ever step foot in this s%t hole called Belarus. If he hasn’t, I do encourage him to make the trip for an extended period of time. A weekend stay in the touristy parts of Minsk doesn’t cut it. I’m starting to see that these national socialist ideologues are complete cretins, looking for any excuse on this God’s green Earth to use to prop up their idiotic ideas. It’s quite evident that It’s a complete waste of time talking to them. Any social economic system that does not put individual’s liberty at it’s center is not worth SPIT.

@White realist:
Neo-Stalinist?Lukashenko is clearly an ethno-nationalist with the real interest of his own people at heart,as it should be.That this ideology of ethno-nationalism is the right one is abundantly proven by its brilliant success in Belarus.How refreshing that such a country really exists!And what a recommendation that no Belarussian was invited at a Bilderberg meeting,that CABAL of destructive globalists!I wish there were more countries like Belarus.If you look from where the most ferocious opposition to Belarus’ success comes (The Weekly Standard,Harvard University,IMF),you suspect a certain ethnic group that never in human history was sympathetic of human happiness…

Capitalism is only a means to an end. True conservatives know this and understand that it must remain subordinate to serving the interests of the nation and its people. Americans who worship at the altar of the market unbridled by law, custom and national interest are either traitors to their country or fools, and there are now many fools and traitors in high positions in academia and governance.